When NetMRI was active, few people ever questioned what an NCM tool “should” look like. It defined the category well enough that most teams simply got on with their work. But now that NetMRI is gone, organisations are forced to revisit something they haven’t seriously thought about in years: what they need from the tool that protects and monitors their network configuration state.

The challenge isn’t a lack of options — it’s the opposite. The market has exploded with platforms claiming to be the “natural successor” to NetMRI. Some are orchestration engines. Some are automation frameworks. Some are discovery platforms with a bit of config functionality added on. And then there are the legacy “Swiss-army-knife” platforms that try to do everything but end up demanding half the engineering team just to maintain.

So how do you cut through the noise and pick something that genuinely fits your environment?

This is where a practical evaluation framework becomes essential.

Start With the Core Problem NetMRI Solved

Before looking at vendors, it helps to take a moment and remember why NetMRI existed in the first place. It wasn’t built as a flashy automation tool or a deep modelling platform. It solved a very basic, very critical set of operational needs:

• Keep configurations backed up

• Track every change

• Provide a clean way to audit compliance

• Automate simple, predictable tasks

• Support a wide range of devices

• Keep everything manageable and understandable

Those fundamentals should shape how you evaluate replacements. If a product can’t match these core expectations — or buries them in unnecessary layers of complexity — then it’s not a meaningful successor.

Avoid Tools That Are Trying to Be Everything

Over the last decade, network automation platforms have drifted toward “do it all” systems. They promise intent-based networking, discovery engines, inventory modelling, orchestration pipelines, design validation, cloud integration, and a dozen other things that sound impressive, but rarely align with what most teams actually use day-to-day.

This is the number one way organisations choose the wrong NetMRI replacement:
they buy far more platform than they can realistically adopt.

A tool might have a 200-page feature list, but if engineers just need dependable backups, fast diffs, and clean compliance, then the bells and whistles offer very little day-to-day value.

Define What You Must Preserve

Every NetMRI user has at least one thing they cannot lose during migration. For some, it’s the nightly backup cycle. For others, it’s compliance rules that took months to fine-tune. Some teams rely heavily on change alerts to flag risks before they turn into incidents.

Identifying those “non-negotiables” early helps you shape your shortlist properly. Most teams identify the same five pillars:

• Backup reliability

• Change detection

• Compliance reporting

• Multi-vendor support

• Straightforward automation

Any tool you consider should match these without forcing you into complex redesigns.

Evaluate How a Tool Handles Scale — Not Just in Device Count

One of the biggest misconceptions is that “scaling” means supporting tens of thousands of devices. In reality, scaling is about how cleanly the platform behaves as your environment changes. More vendors, new device families, updated OS versions, new compliance requirements — all of these place demands on your NCM system.

A good NetMRI replacement won’t force you to rebuild workflows every time something changes. It should adapt, update, and stay predictable, even as the network evolves.

This is where many of the older, heavyweight tools struggle: their complexity grows faster than their usefulness.

Look for Architecture That Reduces Operational Overhead

A modern NCM tool shouldn’t require a dedicated engineer to maintain it. Teams want something they can install quickly, update easily, and rely on without babysitting.

A practical replacement will:

• deploy cleanly, without a constellation of supporting services

• provide fast feedback through clear logs and results

• integrate without fragile scripts or barely-supported connectors

This is one of the main reasons leaner NCM platforms have become popular again — they remove friction rather than adding it.

Don’t Underestimate the Role of Compliance

NetMRI carved out a niche as the compliance tool many organisations relied on, often without realising how heavily audits depended on it. Compliance engines vary wildly across vendors. Some are almost too flexible, where the team spends more time building the framework than using it. Others are rigid and awkward to maintain.

A good replacement should strike the balance NetMRI originally offered: predictable rule evaluation, clear reporting, easy editing, and enough flexibility to evolve with your environment.

If a tool turns compliance into a coding exercise, you’re looking at the wrong product.

Validate the Real-Time Change Story

One of the biggest reasons organisations move on from an NCM tool is that they no longer trust the change tracking. Real-time means more than “check every night and hope nothing slipped through.” It means recognising configuration drift quickly enough to act before it becomes a problem.

This is an area where some NetMRI replacements over-complicate the story — adding pipelines, webhook logic, or tight integrations with external systems just to detect a config change. Simplicity wins here. The tool should capture changes clearly and consistently, without fragile dependencies.

Don’t Let Automation Become a Barrier

NetMRI’s automation capabilities weren’t glamorous, but they were practical. Tasks weren’t buried in orchestration layers or YAML files. Replacements should offer similar simplicity: parameterised templates, straightforward scheduling, and enough control to enforce standards without requiring a DevOps skillset.

Teams should be able to run meaningful automation on day one, not after six weeks of onboarding.

When Does rConfig Fit Into This Framework?

Without turning this into a sales pitch, rConfig naturally sits in the category of tools that focus on fundamentals rather than oversized platforms. It aligns closely with what most teams define as the essential NetMRI successor requirements: reliable backups, fast diffing, strong compliance, multi-vendor coverage, and automation that doesn’t demand a programming background.

Its architecture is modern, fast, and intentionally lean — which is why teams looking for clarity rather than complexity tend to evaluate it seriously as part of their shortlist.

Conclusion

Choosing a NetMRI replacement isn’t about finding a tool with the longest feature list or the most futuristic marketing language. It’s about finding something dependable — something that protects the network’s configuration state, catches drift before it becomes a problem, supports clean compliance, and makes engineers’ work easier rather than harder.

The teams that get this right aren’t the ones who buy the biggest platform; they’re the ones who buy the tool that matches their operational reality. NetMRI’s EOL has forced this conversation forward, but it also gives organisations permission to rethink what good configuration management looks like in 2025.